U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

RE 

In The Matter Of: 

NORTHEASTERN AVIATION 

CORPORATION 

) 

) Docket No. FAA-2014-0812 

) 

) 

) Case No. 2011EA110028 

JUL 2 3 

HEARING 

Respondent ) Assigned: Judge I.E. Sullivan 

RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO AGENCY'S 

MOTION TO COMPEL MORE SPECIFIC 

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

Respondent, by counsel, herewith responds to the Agency's Motion and states as follows: 

1. The Agency served Request for Admissions pursuant to Rule 36 ostensibly 

seeking to obtain admissions that certain documents were "genuine." Responses to the requests 

were timely served by the Respondents. The Agency now moves to compel more specific 

responses. 

2. Before filing the Motion, the Agency sent, presumably what they considered to be 

a good faith letter, in an attempt to resolve a discovery dispute. The letter was responded to with 

an e-mail (Exhibit A) which attempted to engage the Agency counsel in a good faith dialogue to 

ascertain the nature of the Agency's issue with the response. Apparently, the Agency had filed 

its motion prior to receiving the e-mail response. The Agency's motion was not received by the 

Respondent until after Exhibit A was sent. The scheduling order requires that a good faith effort, 

be made to resolve any discovery dispute. Apparently the Agency decided it would rather forego 

that process and file the motion. 

3. The responses to the Request for Admissions are clear and complete. To the 

extent that the Agency does not understand a response, it should be required to meet and confer 
on the issue. Ifthe response is not complete or ambiguous to the Agency, then either a 

thoughtful resolution of the issues can be obtained, or a request for an amended response. 

4. In this case, the response to the request for admissions was properly served. 

Counsel for the Agency was advised as to reasons for the "denial" as part of the response. The 

Agency was advised that the denial only went to any use ofthe admission other than 

authentication, that is, there is no admission as to the truth of the matter asserted in the document 

requested to be genuine. The response was only made for the avoidance of doubt. 

5. At this juncture, the responses should be deemed adequate. In the alternative, the 

tribunal should direct the parties to properly meet and confer. A simple meet and confer would 

likely solve the issues presented, by either leading the Agency to withdraw its motion, or 

allowing for clarity in the response and further stipulation or amendment to take care of any 

issues. 

6. Respondent respectfully requests that the Motion be denied. 

By: 

Respectfully submitted, 

Evelyn D. Sahr 

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1200 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone: 202-659-6619 

Facsimile: 202-659-6699 

E-mail: elongosz@eckertsearnans.com 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this2~day of July, 2015, copies of the foregoing Response and 

Opposition to Agency's Motion to Compel More Specific Responses to Request for 

Admissions was sent by e-mail and Federal Express as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Mr. Zachary M. Berman 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel, Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Tel: 718-553-3273 

Fax: 718-995-5699 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Tel: 202-366-6941 

Fax: 202-366-7537 

Edward J. Longosz, II 

3 
Edward Longosz 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Edward Longosz 

Monday, July 13, 2015 6:05 PM 

zachary.berman@faa.gov 

Edward Longosz 

Subject: RE: Northeastern Aviation Corporation, Docket No. FAA-2014-0812, Case No. 

2011EA110028 

Dear Zack: 

I have been able to review your question and I am not sure the nature of the inquiry. The response is clear that if you 

asking about the authenticity of a document, i.e. genuine copy of the original, then it is admitted as stated. If you are 

suggesting anything else from the request, then any inferences or otherwise flowing from the request is denied. The 

responses are rather simple and if you have a question, please give a call and we can meet and confer on any requests 

or to make clear the nature of the response and resolve any ambiguity. Questions as to authenticity are often taken care 

of to streamline the discovery and hearing process. These matters are often simply resolved by stipulation. I am out of 

town and traveling tomorrow and Wednesday, but in the office Thursday and Friday. Thanks. 

Best regards, 

Edward J. Longosz, II, Esquire 

ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. • 12'" Floor • Washington, DC 20006 

Direct (202) 659-6619 I Fax (202) 659-6699 

elongosz@eckertseamans.com 

From: zachary.berman@faa.gov [mailto:zachary.berman@faa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 10:01 AM 

To: Edward Longosz 

Subject: RE: Northeastern Aviation Corporation, Docket No. FAA-2014-0812, Case No. 2011EA110028 

Ok thanks 

From: Edward Longosz [mailto:ELongosz@eckertseamans.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:36 PM 

To: Berman, Zachary (FAA) 

Subject: RE: Northeastern Aviation Corporation, Docket No. FAA-2014-0812, Case No. 2011EA110028 

Zack--1 am out for the holiday and will revert back to you early next week. Thank you. Regards, 

Edward J. Longosz, II, Esquire 

ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. • 12'" Floor • Washington, DC 20006 

Direct (202) 659-6619 1 Fax (202) 659-6699 

elongosz@eckertseamans.com 

From: zachary.berman@faa.gov <zachary.berman@faa.gov> 

Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 4:00 PM 

1 

EXHIBIT 
To: Edward Longosz 

Subject: Northeastern Aviation Corporation, Docket No. FAA-2014-0812, Case No. 2011EA110028 

See attached letter. 

From: AEA7Lexmark@faa.gov [mailto:AEA7Lexmark@faa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 4:03AM 

To: Berman, Zachary (FAA) 

Subject: Your Scanned Document 

This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are subject to attorney-client privilege and contain 

confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you have 

received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy 

the original message without making a copy. Thank you. 

Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to 

constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. 

2